District Wins Right to Assess Autistic Student Over Mother's Refusal to Consent

Cucamonga School District sought due process after a mother refused to consent to her nine-year-old son's required triennial assessments. The mother argued the proposed tests violated the Larry P. injunction prohibiting IQ testing of African-American students. The ALJ found the proposed tests were not IQ-related or culturally biased, and ordered the district could assess the student without parental consent.

What Happened

The student is a nine-year-old African-American boy with eligibility classifications of autistic-like behaviors and speech or language impairment. He attended third grade at Ontario Center School, spending most of his day in general education with resource support and speech-language therapy. His last formal assessments had been conducted in October 2009, when he was in kindergarten, making a triennial reassessment legally due by October 2012.

In August 2012, Cucamonga School District sent the mother an assessment plan covering academic achievement, speech and language, health, and social-emotional/adaptive functioning. The mother declined to sign it, claiming the proposed tests constituted IQ testing prohibited for African-American students under the Larry P. v. Riles court injunction. Despite the district amending the plan to address one of her concerns, providing her with test protocols, writing multiple letters, and holding an IEP meeting to discuss her questions, the mother never signed the plan or offered a written objection to the specific proposed instruments. The district filed for due process to obtain the right to assess without her consent.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district, finding:

Triennial assessments are legally required. Under the IDEA and California Education Code, districts must reassess students with disabilities at least every three years. The student had not been assessed since kindergarten — his educational data was nearly three years old and out of date. The district had no current information to support appropriate placement or related services decisions.
The district followed all required procedures. The district provided proper notice, a legally compliant assessment plan, copies of procedural safeguards, and multiple opportunities for the mother to respond. It amended the plan at her request and gave her sample test protocols to review. It waited six weeks after the amended plan before filing for due process.
The proposed tests did not violate the Larry P. injunction. The ALJ accepted the uncontradicted testimony of the school psychologist, resource specialist, and speech-language specialist that none of the planned instruments — including the WRAML-2, TAPS-3, Beery VMI-6, BASC-2, CARS, ABAS-II, WJ-III, and DELV — were designed to measure IQ, intelligence, or mental ability. None appeared on the California Association of School Psychologists' prohibited or cautionary lists. Several tests were specifically normed for or sensitive to African-American students, and the speech-language specialist planned to use the DELV precisely because it accounts for language variation in African-American children.
The mother presented no evidence. The mother filed no prehearing statement, did not participate in the prehearing conference, and presented no exhibits or expert testimony at the hearing. Her objections were based solely on unsupported assertions that the tests were IQ-related.

What Was Ordered

The district is authorized to assess the student pursuant to the August 29, 2012 assessment plan without parental consent.
The district must notify the mother by certified mail of the scheduled dates, times, and locations of all assessments, and the mother must present the student for testing as scheduled.
If the mother fails to bring the student to the assessments, the district is relieved of its obligation to provide the student a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) until the mother requests an assessment, consents to a district-provided assessment plan, and presents the student for testing.

Why This Matters for Parents

Refusing triennial assessments can put your child's FAPE at risk. The law requires reassessment at least every three years. If you withhold consent without a legally sufficient reason, the district can go to a due process hearing and get permission to assess without you — and if you still refuse after that, the district may no longer be required to provide services at all.
The Larry P. injunction protects against IQ testing of African-American students — but it does not ban all testing. Larry P. prohibits using IQ or intelligence tests to place African-American students in special education. It does not prohibit achievement tests, speech-language assessments, adaptive behavior measures, or health screenings. If you believe a specific test is discriminatory, you need to identify that test and explain why — not object to an entire plan without evidence.
If you have concerns about specific tests, say so clearly and in writing. The mother's objections were never clearly tied to the actual instruments proposed. Vague objections are unlikely to prevail. Ask the district for the test names, their purpose, and whether they are normed for your child's racial or cultural background. Put your specific concerns in writing.
You have the right to receive test protocols and past assessments before deciding. In this case, the district voluntarily provided the mother with sample test materials and prior assessments. You can request this information to make an informed decision about whether an assessment plan is appropriate.
Participating in hearings matters. The mother presented no evidence, no witnesses, and no exhibits. As a result, the district's witnesses went entirely uncontested. Even if you are representing yourself, attending the prehearing conference, submitting a written position statement, and presenting your concerns on the record gives the ALJ something to weigh — and may change the outcome.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district, finding:

Triennial assessments are legally required. Under the IDEA and California Education Code, districts must reassess students with disabilities at least every three years. The student had not been assessed since kindergarten — his educational data was nearly three years old and out of date. The district had no current information to support appropriate placement or related services decisions.
The district followed all required procedures. The district provided proper notice, a legally compliant assessment plan, copies of procedural safeguards, and multiple opportunities for the mother to respond. It amended the plan at her request and gave her sample test protocols to review. It waited six weeks after the amended plan before filing for due process.
The proposed tests did not violate the Larry P. injunction. The ALJ accepted the uncontradicted testimony of the school psychologist, resource specialist, and speech-language specialist that none of the planned instruments — including the WRAML-2, TAPS-3, Beery VMI-6, BASC-2, CARS, ABAS-II, WJ-III, and DELV — were designed to measure IQ, intelligence, or mental ability. None appeared on the California Association of School Psychologists' prohibited or cautionary lists. Several tests were specifically normed for or sensitive to African-American students, and the speech-language specialist planned to use the DELV precisely because it accounts for language variation in African-American children.
The mother presented no evidence. The mother filed no prehearing statement, did not participate in the prehearing conference, and presented no exhibits or expert testimony at the hearing. Her objections were based solely on unsupported assertions that the tests were IQ-related.

What Was Ordered

The district is authorized to assess the student pursuant to the August 29, 2012 assessment plan without parental consent.
The district must notify the mother by certified mail of the scheduled dates, times, and locations of all assessments, and the mother must present the student for testing as scheduled.
If the mother fails to bring the student to the assessments, the district is relieved of its obligation to provide the student a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) until the mother requests an assessment, consents to a district-provided assessment plan, and presents the student for testing.

Why This Matters for Parents

Refusing triennial assessments can put your child's FAPE at risk. The law requires reassessment at least every three years. If you withhold consent without a legally sufficient reason, the district can go to a due process hearing and get permission to assess without you — and if you still refuse after that, the district may no longer be required to provide services at all.
The Larry P. injunction protects against IQ testing of African-American students — but it does not ban all testing. Larry P. prohibits using IQ or intelligence tests to place African-American students in special education. It does not prohibit achievement tests, speech-language assessments, adaptive behavior measures, or health screenings. If you believe a specific test is discriminatory, you need to identify that test and explain why — not object to an entire plan without evidence.
If you have concerns about specific tests, say so clearly and in writing. The mother's objections were never clearly tied to the actual instruments proposed. Vague objections are unlikely to prevail. Ask the district for the test names, their purpose, and whether they are normed for your child's racial or cultural background. Put your specific concerns in writing.
You have the right to receive test protocols and past assessments before deciding. In this case, the district voluntarily provided the mother with sample test materials and prior assessments. You can request this information to make an informed decision about whether an assessment plan is appropriate.
Participating in hearings matters. The mother presented no evidence, no witnesses, and no exhibits. As a result, the district's witnesses went entirely uncontested. Even if you are representing yourself, attending the prehearing conference, submitting a written position statement, and presenting your concerns on the record gives the ALJ something to weigh — and may change the outcome.